l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Court$(D+2(Bs) writes:
> I$B!G(Bve never seen that second style in Scheme or even Lisp code.
I've seen it before in toy OO systems for Scheme. SICP uses it for a
bit, as does the prometheus prototype OO library, and I believe Oleg's
pure-fp OO example.
> Even GOOPS, Gui
Hi!
Dmitry Bogatov skribis:
> Is using SWIG[1] is endorsed for writing Guile wrappers to C library? I
> make such bindings for libircclient[2] for my project, but it would be
> nice, if it would find way to official Guile tree. Are here some
> guidelines about it?
As Daniel noted, this may not
On 19 April 2013 14:15, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Daniel Hartwig writes:
>>> Also, question of style of Lisp code. It seems, that most common style
>>> is `(action object arg1 ...)` and I find making object callable is more
>>> elegant: `(object #:action arg1 ...)`. Is it discouraged?
>> On some
Daniel Hartwig writes:
>> Also, question of style of Lisp code. It seems, that most common style
>> is `(action object arg1 ...)` and I find making object callable is more
>> elegant: `(object #:action arg1 ...)`. Is it discouraged?
> On some level both styles are functionally equivalent, althoug
On 17 April 2013 13:28, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Hello, list!
>
Hello now
> Is using SWIG[1] is endorsed for writing Guile wrappers to C library? I
> make such bindings for libircclient[2] for my project, but it would be
> nice, if it would find way to official Guile tree. Are here some
> guid
Hello, list!
Is using SWIG[1] is endorsed for writing Guile wrappers to C library? I
make such bindings for libircclient[2] for my project, but it would be
nice, if it would find way to official Guile tree. Are here some
guidelines about it?
Also, question of style of Lisp code. It seems, that
